The Vatican released on Saturday the full text of Benedict XVI's letter to Msgr. Vigano showing that two paragraphs were concealed. The Vatican said it had no intention to censor the letter but chose to leave out parts of it as the letter was confidential. The story as it developed.

March 13: The Holy See has yet to release the full text of the letter Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI sent to Msgr. Dario Vigano, the prefect of the Secretariat for Communications, on 11 short books on TheTheology of Pope Francis, but it has now been published this afternoon by Sandro Magister on his blog, Settimo Cielo. (It later emerged this was not the full text which the Vatican eventually published on March 17 — see details below).

In the letter dated Feb. 7 and written in response to a request from Msgr. Viganò on Jan. 12, Benedict praises the initiative, saying the books oppose and react to a “foolish prejudice” in which Francis is “just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today.”

He also says the books “show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.”

But in the paragraph at the end, Benedict admits to not having fully read the 11 volumes due to “physical reasons” and other commitments.

It’s not clear why the Vatican did not publish the full text but only an obscure photo of the first page, with the final paragraph covered by the 11 books and Benedict's signature at the bottom (see above), although Msgr. Viganò did read out the full text of the letter at yesterday's presentation (it later turned out not to be the full text as a second missing and crucial paragraph was also omitted from Msgr. Vigano's presentation — see below).

The Register contacted Benedict XVI's secretary Archbishop Georg Gänswein yesterday for clarification of the letter and to explain what “inner continuity” means but he has not responded.

Thank you for your kind letter of 12 January and the attached gift of the eleven small volumes edited by Roberto Repole.

I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today.

The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.

However, I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books I had read really well. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already made.

I am sure you will understand and cordially greet you.

Yours,

Benedict XVI

***

UPDATE March 14:

Quoting an anonymous Vatican spokesman, the Associated Pressreported Wednesday that the Vatican admitted to having “altered a photo sent to the media of a letter from retired Pope Benedict XVI about Pope Francis.” The AP added that the “manipulation changed the meaning of the image in a way that violated photojournalist industry standards.”

The report said that the Vatican admitted to blurring “the two final lines of the first page” where Benedict explains that he “didn't actually read the books in question” and “cannot contribute a theological assessment of Francis” as he had other commitments.

The AP added: “The Vatican didn't explain why it blurred the lines other than to say it never intended for the full letter to be released. In fact, the entire second page of the letter is covered in the photo by a stack of books, with just Benedict's tiny signature showing, to prove its authenticity.”

AP’s report continued that the missing content “significantly altered the meaning of the quotes the Vatican chose to highlight, which were widely picked up by the media.” The suggestion given was that Benedict “had read the volume, agreed with it and given it his full endorsement and assessment,” it said.

The news agency said the doctoring was “significant” because news media “rely on Vatican photographers for images of the Pope at events that are closed to independent media.”

The AP made the point that as with most independent news media, it follows “strict standards that forbid digital manipulation of photos” and that “no element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph.”

This episode is particularly embarrassing for the Vatican, coming barely a month since it issued Pope Francis’ message for this year’s World of Social Communications in which the Holy Father called for a “journalism of peace” in an era of “fake news.”

***

UPDATE March 14:

The Register contacted Msgr. Vigano’s office this morning to ask if we could publish the letter that he had sent to Benedict XVI on Jan. 12, in which he asked the Pope emeritus to write about the book series.

A secretary to Msgr. Vigano responded by saying “we have a picture of the letter. You will find it attached [it was the doctored photo of Benedict's letter, published above], together with a shot that shows Msgr. Viganò at the moment he read it during the conference on Monday.”

When we followed up, restating we were requesting a copy of the letter Msgr. Vigano sent and not the one sent by the Pope emeritus, we received no response.

***

UPDATE March 17:

The Vatican released the following statement this afternoon (my translation), only sending it to accredited journalists and not publishing it in its daily bulletin:

"On the occasion of the presentation of the series The Theology of Pope Francis, published by the Vatican Publishing House on March 12, a letter was published by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

Much controversy followed about an alleged censorial manipulation of photography distributed as a photographic handout.

What was read out from the letter, which was confidential, was considered appropriate and related to the sole initiative, and in particular to what the Pope Emeritus says about the philosophical and theological formation of the present Pontiff and the inner union between the two pontificates, leaving out some notes regarding contributors to the series.

The choice was motivated by confidentiality and not by any intention to censor. In order to dispel any doubts, it was therefore decided to make the letter public in its entirety [see the full contents of the letter, released March 17, here]."

Earlier today Vaticanista Sandro Magister revealed there was more to the letter which was neither read out, nor published in the Vatican's press release.

The second missing paragraph which comes at the end of letter reads (my translation):

“Only as an aside, I would like to note my surprise at the fact that among the authors is also Professor Hünermann, who during my pontificate had distinguished himself by leading anti-papal initiatives. He played a major part in the release of the “Kölner Erklärung”, which, in relation to the encyclical “Veritatis splendour”, virulently attacked the magisterial authority of the Pope, especially on questions of moral theology. Also the “Europaische Theologengesellschaft”, which he founded, was initially conceived by him as an organization in opposition to the papal magisterium. Later, the ecclesial sentiment of many theologians prevented this orientation, allowing that organization to become a normal instrument of encounter among theologians.”

According to Magister, Hünermann was an "implacable critic both of John Paul II and of Joseph Ratzinger himself as theologian and as pope." A professor at the university of Tubingen, Magister said "he is the author of, among other things, a commentary on Vatican Council II that is the polar opposite of the Ratzingerian interpretation."

UPDATE March 17:

The letter in full:

Benedictus XVI

Pope Emeritus

Most Reverend Msgr. Dario Edoardo Viganò

Prefect of the Secretariat for Communications

Vatican City

February 7, 2018

Most Reverend Monsignor,

Thank you for your kind letter of 12 January and the attached gift of the eleven small volumes edited by Roberto Repole.

I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today.

The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.

However, I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them because throughout my life it has always been clear that I would write and express myself only on books I had read really well. Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already made.

Only as an aside, I would like to note my surprise at the fact that among the authors is also Professor Hünermann, who during my pontificate had distinguished himself by leading anti-papal initiatives. He played a major part in the release of the “Kölner Erklärung”, which, in relation to the encyclical “Veritatis splendour”, virulently attacked the magisterial authority of the Pope, especially on questions of moral theology. Also the “Europaische Theologengesellschaft”, which he founded, was initially conceived by him as an organization in opposition to the papal magisterium. Later, the ecclesial sentiment of many theologians prevented this orientation, allowing that organization to become a normal instrument of encounter among theologians.

I am sure you will understand my refusal and I offer you cordial greetings.

...And the anti-Pope Francis campaign lead by Americans goes on!!! Strange that ex-pope Benedict does not have time to read the 11 volumes .... because, he says, has too many other commitments!! Did he not resign, 5 years ago, because his health did not permit him to take on other… commitments!! :) Another sign that ex-pope Benedict probably resigned because of his involvement with the corrupt Vatican Bank during his 35-year tenure as a high-ranking Vatican careerist and possibly his poor handling of the thousands and thousands of pedophile Catholic priests during those 35 years. Or, what else could be behind his sudden resignation?! Fr. de Souza, in a recent article in the NCR, opened the door to more speculation about ex-pope Benedict’s resignation and it might be time for Ed Pentin to do his honest journalistic homework on this!

Posted by Anthony on Monday, Mar, 19, 2018 12:48 PM (EDT):

Once deception is used in promotion then a question mark hangs over what is being promoted. Benedict`s criticism of Professor Hunermann, one of the authors of one of the books being portrayed as the Theology of Pope Francis, raises questions. Benedicts criticism does not only concern Hunermann`s`magisterium opposition but to quote,“especially on questions of moral theology”. Also an attack on Veritatus Splendour is an attack on its contents. This present controversy might be minor to the possible controversy concerning the contents in the collection of book.

Posted by Anthony on Monday, Mar, 19, 2018 12:10 PM (EDT):

Once deception is used for promotion it then brings with it a question mark over the authenticity and integrity of what is being promoted. This so called collection of books are being portrayed as the theology of Pope Francis yet are written by many authors. One of the authors being Hunermann whom Benedict in his letter criticises for opposing the magisterium of Veritatis splendour which means not only the Pope himself but the contents of that encyclical, as Benedict`s letter states, “especially on questions of moral theology”. And it is moral theology that is at the heart of the confusion and ambiguity of Amoris Laetitia; the Trojan horse as some describe it. I believe a red flag has emerged concerning this collection of books being promoted as the theology of Pope Francis and until read. studied and assessed that red flag in my opinion, stays up. This Benedict letter controversy only highlights the confusion, ambiguity and contradiction hanging over this papacy. Sorry to say that but it is inescapable.

Posted by Pat on Monday, Mar, 19, 2018 12:05 PM (EDT):

When you have to resort to deception to try yet again to convince the world that the pope is Catholic - there is a problem.

Posted by Judy on Monday, Mar, 19, 2018 11:35 AM (EDT):

If Msgr Vigano is naive for playing with the cheap photo ticks in these days, Carl Kuss is naive to use the long exposed communist trick for naming the defenders of the church as rebel against the chair of Peter. Wrong! The majority here, would die for the faithful pope and the Church. If Carl Kuss ever learn the virtue of silence like St.Joseph on his feast day, he would be peaceful interiorily and we would have a little more peace, St.Joseph, pray for us!

Posted by The Egyptian on Monday, Mar, 19, 2018 8:49 AM (EDT):

And we thought we have a swamp over here, the US is a bunch of pikers, the Vatican has an 1800+ year head start on us.

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Monday, Mar, 19, 2018 7:06 AM (EDT):

What this letter does is to undermine the organized rebellion against the Pontificate of Pope Francis.

In other words:

The “surprise” of the Pope Emeritus at seeing Hünermann among the authors of the eleven-volume series must be well understood.

Pope Benedict is indeed saying in no uncertain terms, that he counts himself proudly among those who defend the authoritative magisterial teaching of St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor.

He places himself definitively in the camp of those who defend VS.

But he is NOT in the anti-Francis camp; for he has just told us so, with a fine Ratzingerian expression: that of the twofold “stolto pregiudizio”: he holds that Francis is a man of deep philosophical and theological formation; and he holds that the Pontificate of his succesor is in continuity with his own.

One would not do THIS, and then effectively suggest the negation of continuity, with the suggestion that Pope Francis is a flagrant deniar of the doctrine of VS. That would leave things in the mist, and Pope Benedict is not an unclear writer.

But what Benedict XVI finds “surprising” in Hünermann’s being found among the authors of the eleven volume series, is not the presence of Hünnerman’s theology.

Pope Benedict is a true intellectual and not an agent of the Idea-Police. He is not telling Hünermann that he should think other thoughts, for “a man convinced against his wil is of the same opinion still.”

Ideas can ALWAYS be discussed.

What he finds objectionable in Hünnermann are not his ideas; it is the scandal of prideful contestation, the dissidence, the organized rebellion against the Magisterium with which he was assoctiated.

This leaves a clear message to those who are carrying out organized rebellion against the Magisterium during the Pontificate of our beloved Pope Francis.

Posted by Andre on Monday, Mar, 19, 2018 5:55 AM (EDT):

Gee H you know this because…. you spoke to Benedict?

Posted by Thibaud on Monday, Mar, 19, 2018 5:15 AM (EDT):

Why has nobody ever made a workplace sitcom set in the Vatican? The jokes write themselves!

(BTW ABC, if you want that idea, I want 10K donated to the Little Sisters of the Poor and “Created by” and “Produced by” credits for me).

Posted by D on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 8:45 PM (EDT):

They seem as bad as the democrats with their manipulation, propaganda and fake news. Send Trump over there!!

Posted by HUGH DAVEY on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 8:30 PM (EDT):

didnt you like my comment ???

Posted by Anthony on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 8:08 PM (EDT):

May I add that the response from the Vatican stating the letter was confidential/private as the reason for not revealing the full letter does not square with releasing or using the first paragraph of the letter for promotion purposes. If the letter was confidential/ private it applied to the whole letter. Besides the first paragraph is out of context on its own without the other two paragraphs. That’s the thing about spin it even fools the users putting them in an unreal world of make belief.

Posted by David on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 7:50 PM (EDT):

Curious that that statement speaks of “leaving out some notes regarding contributors to the series” when the letter as released, while using the plural, “autori”, “author”, attends entirely and in considerable detail to only one contributor.

Curious all those paraphrastic choices of expression - “was published”, “was considered appropriate”, “The choice was motivated”, “it was therefore decided” - when simple, clear detail is always a possibility! By whom, by whose decision, with what - if any - consultation with, and approval by, the author? - we may ask, in each case.

Intriguing that similarity (and yet distinctive difference) of expression by Pope Francis of a work of Cardinal Kasper on 21 February 2104 - “perché ho trovato profonda teologia” (translated at RomeReports as “I found a deep theology”) - and the Holy Father Emeritus in the letter: “Papa Francesco è un uomo di profonda formazione filosofica e teologica” (“Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation”).

It is worth noting that Peter Hünermann’s contribution, Uomini secondo Cristo oggi. L’antropologia di papa Francesco (112 pages), has been available separately since last December. It would be good to read a thoughtful review of it elucidating whether or not his attitudes have changed significantly since his playing “a major part in the release of the ‘Kölner Erklärung’, which, in relation to the encyclical ‘Veritatis splendour’, virulently attacked the magisterial authority of the Pope, especially on questions of moral theology”. This might help us decide whether we should be alarmed or not that he “has updated the texts of this compendium and he has provided each text with an introduction” as advertised by Ignatius Press of their edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum”: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions and Declarations of the Catholic Church.

Posted by Anthony on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 7:42 PM (EDT):

The last paragraph revealed in this letter is most certainly a slap in the face for those wishing to use it to promote the launching of the Little Volumes of Theology. Instead of an endorsement a big question mark now appears in its place. The spin is nothing more than deceitful manipulation. Deceit is a grave and sinister act. Most certainly unbecoming of the Vatican and anti Christian in nature. Jesus Christ is without deceit teaching deceit is part of the nature of the Evil One That is a fact and no amount of theological juggling can change that fact. Which makes this sad episode all the more shameful. So, so sad.

Posted by Fr. Joe on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 6:28 PM (EDT):

I’m really glad the original letter was made available. I think that Pope Benedict has been badly mistreated. I think it was corrupt to edit out the Pope’s comments on the letter.

Posted by John Hickey on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 6:17 PM (EDT):

Matthew 10:16. Who is being “as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove” ?

Posted by Judith Echaniz on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 5:19 PM (EDT):

At a little more than a decade younger than Pope Benedict, I am already recognizing some physical limitations. Younger readers should bear in mind that we oldsters need very much to think of and to concentrate on matters other than how we may feel on a given day! What’s dear to Pope Benedict is the scholarship and faith he’s always shown and delivered. He deserves our prayerful enthusiasm for Every Sentence he can produce now, and I look forward to reading it all. Ignatius Press, are you paying attention? Lighter on the small “fluffy interview” books on Benedict—and more meat like the Theology of the Liturgy volume But Brand New! We should read him with the same loving care that we read Pope John Paul long before he was canonized. Yes, Benedict’s humility is a model for all of us, and may his prayers help us. We should do our best to pass along “how to manage now” to our children and grandchildren; after all, we lived through the 1960s and on from there. The Holy Spirit in the continuity of the Church is with us to help, with Jesus in the Eucharist and Our Lady.

The Lord help me! Thoughts come into my prayers: I would prefer a Borgia pope or a pope moving to Avignon to this this pope if God has planned a trial for His Holy Church. I have begun to pray to Pope St. Pius X for intercession to guard the Church against Modernist churchmen.

Posted by Linus2nd on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 4:01 PM (EDT):

How in the world did Msgr. Vigano think he could get away with this deception, and why attempt it? Looks very odd to me. The Vatican is a mess these days, we need another great Saint to take clean things up.

Posted by mark on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 3:33 PM (EDT):

“The Vatican said it had no intention to censor the letter but chose to leave out parts of it as the letter was confidential. The story as it developed.”
Just a reasoned logical point to be made. If the letter was “confidential” why was any of it published? Blocking out part of the the letter is pretty much the definition of censorship. Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.

Posted by EMMETT on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 3:23 PM (EDT):

We now know that pope Francis,cardinals, Kasper, Marx,and Schonborn etc,are taking or church in a direction that seems to contradict and invalidate church teachings,the very will of God himself, they clearly reject the teachings of Pope Paul VI,St John Paul II,pope Benedict XVI, hence the birth of Amoris Laetitia ch 8,The most notorious it seems is cardinal Kasper the chief theologian to POPE Francis singled out for special praise On the March 17, 2013, four days after his election as pope and during his first Angelus address in St. Peter’s Square, the Holy Father drew attention to a recently published book called Mercy by Walter Cardinal Kasper and strongly praised it. He said:,“In these days I have been able to read a book by a Cardinal – Cardinal Kasper, a talented theologian, a good theologian I would like to thank him because I found a deep theology; this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you”.To get an idea of the theology of Kasper,one only needs to read his so called classic work “Jesus the Christ”. It is a Christ whose very miracles are “problematic” and whose history recounted in the written Gospels he declared embellished with fanciful legends by his followers! Kasper revealed thereby a slavish capitulation to the excesses of the historical-critical method of exegesis developed by German Protestants like Bultmann and Dibelius. He thus had no hesitation in asserting there are contradictions in the Gospel accounts.Do any of these men truly have the catholic faith.

Posted by Will Walsh on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 2:05 PM (EDT):

If only really cranky people post here I guess I’m one too. That said, I am struck by how difficult it is for some people to accept that this letter is not from Benedict XVI. Some Catholics really dislike Pope Francis, and have convinced themselves that because they loved Ratzinger he must share their views. JPII made Bergoglio a Cardinal in 2001, was he duped? The Pope Emeritus has vastly more information on the subject of Juan Bergoglio than I or anyone else here does. If the present Pope were a wicked man bent on destruction of the Church or Pope Clouseau or some kind of Manchurian Candidate as people like to say, do you think Benedict might have said something in the last five years that at least implied concern? I concede it is possible that I missed it. To me, Francis seems to have wonderfully managed to appeal to people who had been otherwise closed off from the Church without compromising on doctrine. Many of those attracted to him are people I love, so I guess I love the Pope for that in particular.

I don’t want to offend anyone, and apologize if I have done so. That said, should Catholics not be less susceptible to the notion that the Vatican is holding an old saint hostage or publishing forged correspondence out of desperation? Isn’t Ratzinger’s admission that he has not read the whole pile something one of Bergoglio’s evil henchmen would have been unlikely to write?

I read Matthew’s gospel to forbid divorce myself. Maybe I am blind to the threat of that footnote in AL, because I read Pope Francis to say that the rules will not change but maybe our approach to people could do so. We don’t have to agree with the Pope on everything to remain basically optimistic. I suspect that what makes some dislike Francis is that he does not share their political commitments, but I don’t think that should be so important. I think most would agree that we are not going to bring about a golden age by electing the party we like. Jesus is still coming though.

Posted by tad on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 12:42 PM (EDT):

Rome is full of Wolves! The Devil is the father of lies. And Rome is full of liars. Even Benedict and his aide continue to make these Masonic hand signals. The triangle is front and center when Benedict and Ganswein talk. If you do not believe it, then look at the video’s, is it by accident? Or do just powerful people like the Bush family do it? Kind of weird, but it keeps showing up with world leaders making this sign at public gatherings. I use to think it was just a bunch of baloney, but there it is again, Benedict with the triangle sign.

Posted by Morenowthanever on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 11:40 AM (EDT):

Everyone seems to be focusing on the words of Benedict, the fact remains and it is so telling, that on the anniversary of the fifth year of this Pontificate they purposely manipulated the truth to suit their narrative. They lied, not to prevent scandal, but to purposely deceive us. That is all we need to know about this entire incident.

Posted by H on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 10:38 AM (EDT):

These 3 points are now evident:

(1) The Pope Emeritus did not wish to make comment on the series of volumes, but he was made to appear to, anyway;

(2) The Pope Emeritus did not wish to make comment not only because he had no time, but also because he perceived part of the series to be distasteful and inappropiate, if not even unworthy;

(3) The protestation of the Pope Emeritus that there is an interior continuity between the two pontificates is no praise of Francis. Interior continuity is a given; this is the Church built on Peter, is it not? Rather this statement of the obvious is meant to contradict the anti-papal, anti-magisterial goals of Hunermann (which now appear to be the goals of Francis.

How Rome has changed. She no longer cares about the Congregation in charge of Doctrine, nor the Congregation in charge of Worship, but undercuts them. And she has created a Ministry of Propaganda. Not praise of God nor right teaching, but mundane spin and image are everything.

Posted by Chicagoan on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 8:37 AM (EDT):

Letter-Gate reveals political nature of this pontificate complete with dirty tricks.
Lying is a horrible sin that takes many forms. I think the cabal surrounding the Pope keeps him in n unreal bubble, removed from the hub-bub, confusion and unrest that has run rampant for five long years. They don’t love the Church.

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 5:57 AM (EDT):

It now appears not only that Pope Francis has high regard for the theological and philosophical formation of Pope Francis and considers that the Pontificate of Francis is in continuity with his own BUT ALSO THAT he does not like it when groups of theologians with an inflated view of their own importance get on their high horse in rebellion against the well-formulated teachings of the Magisterium of the Church and attempt to set up a Parallel Magisterium of their own as was the case in 1989 when the Kólner Erklarung was written and signed by a number of leading theologians, among which a certain Peter Hünermann, who “virulently attack the Magisterium of the Church” and set up new lobbying groups in oppostion to the Magisterium of the Church.

In 1989 these people called themselves Progressives and thought of themselves as the salvation of the true Church.

But isn’t there another group of people doing the same thing today? The only difference is that this time the group does not call itself progressive, but calls itself by other names. Isn’t Pope Benedict suggesting a parallel between two groups of contestatory theologians? One of which, unmentioned, being very active today.

Thus Benedict finds it ironic that among those supporting Francis today there should be one who found himself among the ranks of the high and mighty contestatory faction in 1989, during an analogous situation of the Pontificate of St. John Paul II, when the lucid teaching of the Magisterium was under attack.

This explains the “surprise” that the former Pontiff admits to have felt.

This letter is very authentic, very Benedict, very Joseph Ratzinger.

Posted by Mari Bernadette on Sunday, Mar, 18, 2018 1:31 AM (EDT):

It is hard for me to understand the contents of this letter. furthermore, how Pope Benedict XVI could evaluate (philosophical, theological) the books of Pope Francis, if he states that he has not read them?

Posted by EMMETT on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 9:28 PM (EDT):

We know the carcasses that pope Francis feeds on,cardinals, Kasper, Marx, Schonborn,they clearly reject the teachings of Pope Paul VI,St John Paul II,pope Benedict XVI hence the need for AL ch 8,The most notorious it seems is cardinal Kasper the chief theologian to POPE Francis singled out for special praise On the March 17, 2013, four days after his election as pope and during his first Angelus address in St. Peter’s Square, the Holy Father drew attention to a recently published book called Mercy by Walter Cardinal Kasper and strongly praised it. He said:,“In these days I have been able to read a book by a Cardinal – Cardinal Kasper, a talented theologian, a good theologian I would like to thank him because I found a deep theology; this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you”.some view cardinal Kasper as an out-and-out heretic to get an idea of this one only needs to have a short read.of his so called classic work “Jesus the Christ”. It is a Christ whose very miracles are “problematic” and whose history recounted in the written Gospels he declared embellished with fanciful legends by his followers! Kasper revealed thereby a slavish capitulation to the excesses of the historical-critical method of exegesis developed by German Protestants like Bultmann and Dibelius. He thus had no hesitation in asserting there are contradictions in the Gospel accounts.

Posted by Janet on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 8:41 PM (EDT):

Just released, per Associated Press: VATICAN CITY (AP) — Stung by accusations of spreading “fake news,” the Vatican on Saturday released the complete letter by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI about Pope Francis after coming under blistering criticism for selectively citing it in a press release and digitally manipulating a photograph of it.The previously hidden part of the letter provides the full explanation why Benedict refused to write a commentary on a new Vatican-published compilation of books about Francis’ theological and philosophical background that was released to mark his fifth anniversary as pope.In addition to saying he didn’t have time, Benedict noted that one of the authors involved in the project had launched “virulent,” ‘‘anti-papist” attacks against his teaching and that of St. John Paul II. He said he was “surprised” the Vatican had chosen the theologian to be included in the 11-volume “The Theology of Pope Francis.”

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 5:38 PM (EDT):

Now will those who were telling us that “stolto pregiudizio” didn’t sound like Benedict tell us that “anti-papal intiatives” and “virulent attacked the magisterial authority of the Pope” doesn’t sound like Benedict either? I don’t think so. They will tell us “See you, this sounds like Benedict!”

Whereas I always thought it sounded just like Benedict. It sounded like Benedict before we got to read the last section, and it sounds like Benedict still.

What this letter, now released in its entierety, is telling us is clearly the following:

The Pope emeritus defends the magisterial teaching of John Paul II, and also the continuity of the pontificate of Pope Francis with his own, and also the depth of the philosophical and theological formation of Pope Francis.

(One commentator here at the Register suggested that he uses the word “depth” in some ambiguous/deprecating sense. This is frankly absurd. Benedict considers truth to be deep and error to be superficial.)

Benedict considers the moral doctrine taught by John Paul II and himself to be an important gift to the Church.

He also believes that the teaching of Francis on the family constitutes no negation of that teaaching, but is in continuity with it.

Any other interpretation is against the obvious sense of this letter.

I advise those who are interested in history to go back and read the reactions that a number of liberal theologians made to Veritatis Splendor; and then read what the neo-rigorists say about Amoris Laeititia. The consequentialists of yore said “Consequentialism? wWat consequentialism?” Today’s neo rigorists say “Rigorism? What rigorism?” Rigorism is a form of moral relativism (just as consequentialism is) that dresses itself up as True Morality.

Posted by James on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 5:15 PM (EDT):

Sandro Magister brings the raking light…
It appears Pope Emeritus Benedict was being depicted as taking a long walk off a short pier when in actuality he took one step forward and two steps back on the shallowest ledge.
God reward him. Not a perfect situation, but he navigated it as best as can presently be expected. At this moment the “continuity” runs not so deep as some would like us to believe.

Posted by Arthur McGowan on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 4:48 PM (EDT):

Wow! Is there another missing paragtraph—about Emma Bonino?

Posted by William Niermeyer on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 4:31 PM (EDT):

I applaud Benedict for the verification of the profound faith of Francis. Pope Francis would make St. Francis ( the two major ones) proud. That would involve sin but none the less is truthful.

Posted by Anthony on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 4:29 PM (EDT):

The full letter thankfully reported here by Edward Pentin sheds a whole new light on the controversy. It most certainly is not an endorsement of the recently released volumes. Actually the last paragraph questions, in my opinion, the orthodoxy of one of the participants involved in the volumes. Most importantly it reveals Pope Emeritus Benedict did not read the said volumes and has not given an opinion on their contents. What has emerged is an attempt to manipulate the letter in a publicity stunt at the Little Volumes public release; and that may be putting it charitably.

Posted by Larry Northon on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 4:01 PM (EDT):

Today’s (March 17) revelation from Sandro Magister is nothing less than shocking. We not only see why the last paragraph was held back, but we see how cynically manipulative Francis’ Vatican has become. Without the ending, the letter conveys the impression of lukewarm support for Francis. But the ending turns everything around into a slap at the current Pontiff. Benedict is all-but-accusing Francis of consorting with heretics. Magister’s version is devastating to Francis. “Embarrassing” would be far too weak a word. And yet, the subtly-worded but powerful ending only plays up the contrast with the “foolish prejudice” comment of two paragraphs earlier. I’m tempted to opine that it doesn’t seem like the same man wrote both paragraphs, but then I’m frankly clueless as to where that might lead. (Why would it be “foolish” to look askance at Francis’ theology in one paragraph, and then two graphs later note “my surprise” at the involvement of a heterodox writer? The latter stands at odds with the former. Obviously, in view of Hunermann, it is neither “foolish” nor a “prejudice” to wonder about Francis’ theology. I don’t get it. This is beyond me. Not only is there a radical change in tone from one graph to the next, but the logic of the latter is incompatible with the former.) I also strongly suspect that someone connected to Benedict, probably acting on the Pope Emeritus’ behalf, leaked the devastating ending to Sandro Magister, forcing the Vatican to come clean. Right now, Francis has got to be furious with Benedict, and I suspect the feeling is mutual. What will become of Benedict?

Posted by judy on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 2:55 PM (EDT):

As the shame keep covers The Beloved our Church, with a heavy heart we ought to ask that if the 11 books, so call theology book by the name of pope Francis, he is then the one has ultimate responsibilities of the whole deception and the intentional charactor attack on Benedict XVI. We ought to pray much for God to deliver us from this shame. I hope it is the beginning of the end.

Posted by Rachel on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 1:31 PM (EDT):

As of the March 17 update this plot truly thickens!! Thank you NCR! Although I did not agree with a previous comment, I did agree that Benedict XVI may have written the letter in German originally. Where is the original manuscript, if there was one, or computer file? This last paragraph from March 17 update rings 100% true to me. I found myself encouraging someone yesterday, “not to worry, there is a traditional side to the Catholic Church. We’ll be fine.”

Posted by judy on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 1:13 PM (EDT):

Poor Carl Kuss, his half day euphoria is like a day dream. Even many ultra liberal sites admitted the naive Msgr.Vigano is a shame of the party. One thing is a clear sign with Carl Kuss, he names good people in the media or commentaries at the loss of his courage when the world has the better vision than his ideology.

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 8:40 AM (EDT):

Fr. Z’s piece on this matter is escapist; he just does not want to admit the basic fact.

He could be right in saying that Benedict is responding to a letter which brings up the subject of the “foolish prejudice” that Benedict names, and which asks him for a brief and dense summary of what the eleven-volumes have to say in this regard.

This would indeed explain the uncharacteristic self-referentiality and the uncharacteristically harsh expression “foolish prejudice.”

But this does not take any force away from what Pope Benedict affirms about the profound theological and philosophical formation of Pope Francis and about the continuity of the Pontificate of Pope Francis with respect to his own.

(Nota bene, for Benedict continuity is not something static, but rather implies development: see his December 2005 discourse to the Roman Curia concerining the Hermeneutics of Reform.)

It doesn’t imply that both branches of the foolish prejudice are not really foolish prejudices.

What Benedict says is that I do not need to have read these volumes to affirm what I am here affirming. This actually makes the affirmation more forceful, rather than less.

He also implies that he also has perused the volumes in some way since he says that his convictions about Pope Francis concord with what the volumes have to say: he has perused them without reading from cover to cover. There you have an honest man!

Posted by Sergio D'Agostino on Saturday, Mar, 17, 2018 1:59 AM (EDT):

My point in suggesting a translation alternative (amongst others) to the phrase ‘stolto pregiudizio’ (‘foolish prejudice’) – and indeed to the longer sequence “… vuole opporsi e reagire allo stolto pregiudizio per cui …” (“… wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice that …”) – was that literal translations of this kind can have a rhetorically jarring effect on English speaking readers; this is because the phrasing does indeed convey an unexpectedly abrasive tone in the context of a formal / private piece of correspondence between the pope emeritus and Msgr. Viganò. In fact, Mr. Northon himself, in a previous post, expresses perplexity at the ‘bluntness’ of Benedict’s ‘rhetorical style’ and asks if it is typical of him. I’m saying that it is potentially typical of Italians generally, and evidence that it might be is that, whatever the subtleties of the debate in Italy, no-one that I have read is baulking at Benedict’s use of the phrasing in the first place; because they are rhetorically attuned to it. When the phrasing is translated literally into English, however, then it can become a problem, as in fact it appears to have done in at least couple of places in this thread. Ultimately what I’m suggesting is that, whatever ideological line we care to pursue here in the anglophone world, if we don’t clear away the translational dross first, one thing we wont be able to do is get at the substance of the debate.

(It occurs to me: if we assume the letter is Benedict’s – and again, no Italian account I’ve read suggests it is not – mightn’t he have written originally in German and had the text translated for Msgr. Viganò? I wouldn’t have thought his Italian was quite up to it, but I could be wrong. There you go, another complexity.)

Posted by Larry Northon on Friday, Mar, 16, 2018 3:01 PM (EDT):

The exact phrase in Benedict’s letter is “stolto pregiudizio,” which literally means “foolish prejudice.” I couldn’t find the etymology, but I would guess that “stolto” comes from the Latin adjective “stultus -a -um,” which means foolish or stupid, and from the noun “stultitia -ae (f)” which means stupidity, folly or foolishness. The Italian word for “myth” is “mito,” which I’m sure Benedict could have used if he (or let us say the writer of the letter) had intended to say “myth” rather than “foolish prejudice.” It sounds to me like the translation given by Mr. Pentin is far more accurate than “... aimed at dispelling the myth…” proposed by Mr. D’Agostino.

Posted by David on Friday, Mar, 16, 2018 2:05 PM (EDT):

It would be good to have a full transcription and accurate translation of all that Msgr. Viganò said when he read out the letter.

Christopher Ferrara has interesting attention to what may lie between the Holy Father Emeritus and as much of the text as we see in the photograph and have in transcription from Sandro Magister, and to a comparison between his fore-/afterword for Cardinal Sarah’s Silence and this note - but not with the attention to the stylistics of different languages such as Sergio D’Agostino happily gives in his comment - or sufficiently to the differences between a fore-/afterword and this thank-you-note reply.

Much as I wondered if he may be quoting from Msgr. Viganò‘s letter to him in the later paragraph, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (a much better Italianist then I) speculates, “It could be that the letter which was sent to Benedict with the volumes – which clearly was trying to get out of him that much-desired ‘brief and dense theological page’ itself was the source of the dichotomy that Benedict rejects: ‘You know, Holiness, that there are people out there who say X about Francis and Y about you. Why don’t you write something that refutes that claim?’”

Are there Italian conventions for quoting, directly or indirectly from, or closely echoing, a letter received, in replying to it, in such circumstances?

I notice a nice little chiasmus between the first time, when he writes, “un uomo pratico privo di particolare formazione teologica o filosofica” and when, in the following paragraph he writes, “un uomo di profonda formazione filosofica e teologica”, varying the order of “theological or philosophical” and “philosophical and theological” - for whatever reason (a possible accent on “philosophical” first?).

I have also begun to wonder if there is an accent on inescapable theological continuity and so the need for a ‘hermeneutics of continuity’ here and in the phrase “inner continuity between the two pontificates” – not ‘between the two of us, as pontiffs’, and despite where Pope Francis may allow his ‘temperament’ and “philosophical” leanings to lead him.

Posted by Rachel on Friday, Mar, 16, 2018 9:33 AM (EDT):

I would like to add that Benedict XVI is also referencing the foolish prejudice with regard to himself as perhaps the “cerebral type” only. He was a remarkable Pope and a significant part of my conversion. I believe this is a deep, polite and congenial letter from our ailing Pope Emeritus that is in no way an endorsement of modernism. It begs the question why the Vatican felt the need to publish his letter at all.

Posted by Rachel on Friday, Mar, 16, 2018 9:24 AM (EDT):

I am very concerned about this and am grateful to National Catholic Register for the ongoing follow through. As laypeople we are warned to confess sins of omission and commission. We are taught to confess when we have lied. In a way I’m glad it surfaced during Lent. I invite Jesus into my own engagement with this matter.

Posted by James on Friday, Mar, 16, 2018 7:05 AM (EDT):

@Judy: I am very frequently amazed at the parallels provided to our current situation in the stories from the Old Testament, and here you have brought another to the fore from the Book of Daniel. It is a balm during the present captivity. God reward you.
“Blessed art thou, O Lord, the God of our fathers, and thy name is worthy of praise, and glorious for ever: For thou art just in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are true, and thy ways right, and all thy judgments true…”
“Put us not to confusion, but deal with us according to thy meekness, and according to the multitude of thy mercies. And deliver us according to thy wonderful works, and give glory to thy name, O Lord: And let all them be confounded that shew evils to thy servants, let them be confounded in all thy might, and let their strength be broken. And let them know that thou art the Lord, the only God, and glorious over all the world.”
God reward you.

Posted by David Martin on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2018 10:29 PM (EDT):

Vatican insiders who are familiar with Benedict’s writing will tell you that the translated letter is not his writing. It is well established at this point that Benedict’s letter was doctored. Rules were broken so that a lie could be advanced. This was done to give the impression that he read and endorsed Vigano’s books on Francis, which in turn was done to give credibility to the visible text on the left page. If in fact Benedict wrote the text, then there is no need to give it credibility because it stands on its own merit, so if these Vatican scoundrels have gone to this extent to sell the text on the left page, it’s telling you that they either fabricated the text or tampered with it. Quite safe to say, a fake letter.

Posted by Sergio D'Agostino on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2018 9:54 PM (EDT):

Part of the problem with translations that come out of the Vatican, and Italy generally, is that they are ‘clunky’, in the sense that they are too literalizing. Such translations can’t necessarily account for culturally determined expressions of attitude that inhere in the source language – expressions of attitude that may jar with target-audience readers. For example, I would suggest that the literal translation of the sequence “... that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice that…” would be better rendered in English as “... aimed at dispelling the myth that ...”. It’s stark, but so is the difference in the way languages can conventionally convey discourse-attitudinal meaning. Below is my rendering of the emeritus pope’s opening endorsement, which I think better matches interpersonal meanings with the genre of formal correspondence in English:

“I welcome this initiative, that is aimed at dispelling the myth that Pope Francis is mostly a man of practical skills, unlettered in theological or philosophical matters; whereas I was apparently merely an academic, a theologian, not really attuned to the problems and concerns of the modern day Christian. This set of writings shows clearly that Pope Francis is a man of deep theological and philosophical insight; and so it reveals an underlying continuity between the two pontificates, notwithstanding individual styles and personalities”.

Posted by Judy on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2018 9:26 PM (EDT):

@dear James, I share your lament. However, I see the ember among the quite priests (many are young) and young seminarians. Also young parents who raise many children at home to teach the old Catholics. There are many adoration chapels in the country. We quite adores carry the soul of Jesus. As three young men sang “Benedictus” in the chamber of fire, we carry the joy of our faith.
Reserve one heartfull writings for the better day of our church in our life. I really hope it’s the case. As I remember your writings through years, you and your sister all witnessed the rough times of our church. If you have suffered more, you will be rewared more.
God bless you James!

Posted by Debbie on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2018 7:11 PM (EDT):

“I applaud the initiative . . .” sounds very much like the words of one who would contribute good to something in any way he could. Applauding specifically the initiative to combat a prejudice that Francis is not philosophically and theologically trained is in harmony with Pope Benedict’s goodness, and in harmony with his striking personal history in seeking to live a life in accordance with the scripture, “. . . whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Phil 4:8). What sounds strangely harsh and foreign to Benedict’s style is the phrase, “foolish prejudice.” Could this be a translation issue? I do not know; but one thing is certain: This papacy has a remarkable consistency in raising questions, creating confusion, and sparking conflicts regarding both lesser and greater matters, and even in serious doctrinal issues. May the Lord help us and guide us in His wisdom and love.

Posted by James on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2018 12:40 PM (EDT):

Ecclesia appears now to be the hands of a group of dog collared criminals who are without concern of maintaining a flock of believers. Some nominal adherents appreciative of their backs scratched provide an excuse for this oligarchy to exist, collect their stipend, perks and prestige of a two thousand year old eviscerated edifice with no other purpose than to be a place saver in a society freed from assent to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Their credence rests on valor stolen from saints, scholars and decent churchmen who walked before them.
Their hands on not only the physical and economic assets of the institution, they can now craft the decomposition of the spiritual assets – the perennial Magisterium, the academic brilliance, the history, the relics, the iconography, the lexicon, the art and architecture.
The destruction of the Church engineered by the episcopal forces of secular materialism allows them to go unperceived. There be no martyrs, no blood, no heroes, and no silent witness to Jesus Christ. His image destroyed, His image eliminated in society, in history, will not His image be erased in humanity?
When the Son of Man returns will He find any faith on the earth?
These malefactors have not an iota of concern for the likes of the faithful who perceive what is transpiring. Their goal is for us to “self-select,” to opt out. The more outrageous they behave the better – it only serves their purpose. The more they behave as they wish the more likely we are to evaporate.
Everything coming up, and it is going to be an avalanche over the next few years, is designed to get rid of what remains of the faithful and allow parasitic atheist members of the episcopate to keep their place in the palace. The episcopate is in the hands of bold liars. Those who aren’t are cowards. An anonymous remainder are – God willing – calculating the optimum moment to expose the fraudulence occupying the Chair.
“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where the See of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be.” – Pope Leo XIII
Never have I longed to be so wrong.

Posted by John on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2018 11:25 AM (EDT):

Nothing adds up. Why would a private letter be made public and done in such a shady manner? Pope BXVI (Ratzinger)‘s writings always reflects an intellectual respect towards other theologians past and present, whether he agrees, partially agrees, or disagrees. Maybe, in a private letter, I can countenance him writing that a viewpoint is “foolish”, but Ratzinger isn’t the type to issue such strong comments on works that he hasn’t even read! In books he’s written and in the interviews he’s given, I’ve never heard Ratzinger use derogatory language. The strongest I’ve heard from him was regarding Tertullian in his two-volume set on Church Fathers: (paraphrasing) “Tertullian gave the vocabulary to begin to understand the Trinity, and his reflections make me think deeply, but in the end, he lacked forbearance and humility.” Tertullian broke from the Church and was just flat out wrong on many doctrines; yet, Pope BXVI’s words were still gentle but decisive in helping us understand why the Church cannot canonize Tertullian. However, Pope BXVI would not just name-call theologians as “fools”; he loves theology because it reaches out to God in the noble effort to understand Him.

Like other commentators in this section, I think the world needs to be vigilant. It is obvious that Pope BXVI is a saint and Doctor of the Church. So, many are anxious to receive his endorsement, even transcribing words that Pope BXVI may never have written or spoken. This episode is another data point to illustrate my distrust of the Vatican at the moment.

Posted by Ranger01 on Thursday, Mar, 15, 2018 6:08 AM (EDT):

There is reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of this letter. We simply have what we have and if this Vatican is indeed as corrupt as it seems, we hope it crumbles in God’’s good time.
Thank you, Mr. Pentin, for your continued excellent reporting. Pay no attention to the devotee of the pervert, criminal liar, Maciel; who expounds on this site.

Posted by Judy on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 10:19 PM (EDT):

I would like to see if any will take the responsibility on this gross conduct. Msgr.Vigano got to go. Pope rarely fires his hand picked personality even they are with much scandal. On the other hand he fires many good servants without reason. actually, in humiliating manner. Is this our Rome? Is this our sweet Home? God help us!!!

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 6:48 PM (EDT):

The important and newsworthy part of the letter is that part in which Pope Benedict praises the profound philosophical and theological formation of Pope Francis and affirms the inner continuity of the pontificate of Pope Francis with his own.

It is also correct and fitting that these words (and not the rest) be published on the Fifth Anniversary of the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Francis.

It is also logical that the attention be given to this part rather than to the last paragraph, which is important to the letter, but does not constitute an important news item for the public at large.

In this last paragraph Pope Benedict declines the request to make a brief and dense theological comment on the eleven-volume work of secondary literature on the thought of Pope Francis because of the physical impossibility (based on his age, health and commitments) of reading them; for he has the habit of not commenting on works he has not read.

This is illustrative of the humility and sobriety of Pope Benedict, but is not the news item. (“Former Pope admits that he is ninety years old.”)

And it by no means shows that he does not mean what he said about the intellectual formation of Pope Francis and about continuity, in spite of all the suggestions to the contrary, suggestions which are apparently meant to distract us from what is in fact newsworthy and significant.

These suggestions, however, smack of manipulation.

Posted by Larry Northon on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 5:59 PM (EDT):

I’m at a disadvantage here, not being intimately familiar with Benedict’s rhetorical style in both formal and informal, written and verbal speech. I’d like those who are more familiar with the above than myself to analyze whether Benedict typically uses language such as “...The foolish prejudice…(etc)” We know that this is consonant with Francis’ style. Are there examples of Benedict using such bluntness? I’d like to see quotes. There is one other thing that seems odd about the text. Benedict says, “Unfortunately, if only for physical reasons, I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future, especially as other commitments await me that I have already made.” He resigned from the papacy because of advancing age and declining health. I get that much. I can tell you from firsthand experience that ill health limits one’s ability to do mental as well as physical work. But then what are these “other commitments?” When you’re chronically ill, you neither seek nor accept “other commitments.” Commitments are stressful. A sick person needs a great deal of rest, not commitments. He supposedly resigned the papacy to avoid having to fulfill future commitments. He’s been out of office for five years. Surely these are not commitments which he accepted prior to leaving office in 2013. He’s too sick to read the books AND he has too many commitments? I don’t understand that. The two assertions don’t jibe. Maybe someone can help me here.

Posted by David on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 5:58 PM (EDT):

It would be good to see an official, full, unblurred release of the whole letter. It would be equally good to see the full text of Monsignor Viganò‘s 12 January letter (and any further correspondence between the two on this subject). “Tuttavia non mi sento di scrivere su di essi una breve e densa pagina teologica” (Magister’s text, translated here as, “However, I don’t feel like writing a short and dense theological passage on them”) sound like an answer to a very specific request - perhaps even including a literal quotation in the phrase about “a short and dense theological passage”. My guess is that he was requested to provide a ‘puff piece’ such as are used in advertising new books and in ‘blurbs’, and politely refused.

It would be good to have some detailed comments by Italian speakers on the stylistics and nuances of the letter. For example, does it imply, as Reuben thinks, that the Holy Father Emeritus “says he is in favor of the books and supports their general thesis” after having read them but further “says he can’t make statements about their details, however, because he hasn’t read them closely”? Or does he simply say, “Plaudo a questa iniziativa” (“I applaud this initiative”) while noting “non sono in grado di leggere gli undici volumetti nel prossimo futuro” (“I am unable to read the eleven volumes in the near future”) with the implication that he has neither read them nor intends to do so, any time soon?

And, what is the possible weight or accent of “Purtroppo, anche” (“Unfortunately, if only”) - could it be, ‘one of many reasons’? And, of “Sono certo che avrà comprensione”(“I am sure you will understand”), which Magister seems to gloss with “E chi vuole intendere intenda”(“And he who wishes to understand, let him understand”)?

Again, what of “Papa Francesco è un uomo di profonda formazione filosofica e teologica” (“Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation”)? Might it imply, ‘formed in a certain way the Jesuits, he knows exactly what he is doing - make of that fact what you will’?

Incidentally, has Nicole Winfield revised “The Vatican didn’t explain” to “A Vatican spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity, didn’t explain” since you quoted her - meaning there has in fact been no official, attributable ‘Vatican’ response?

Posted by Samper Fidei on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 5:38 PM (EDT):

I echo the words of one of the posters….I have great fear for our beloved Pope Benedict. I don’t trust this Vatican regime for anything. Our Holy Father might be in great danger. Faithful Catholics let us keep our eyes wide open.

Posted by TS on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 5:08 PM (EDT):

The truth is once again disclosed due to the work of a Catholic blogger. Long-live the new media of the Internet!

Posted by Lance M on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 4:52 PM (EDT):

With the updated information this is pretty damning.

It might explain how the different interprations of Amoris Laetitia (AL)have come about. I searched the archives and was also able to locate the text from the Gospel of Matthew which was used for the Synod’s where AL came from. Here is what they used:

Jesus said to them, “Because of (blurred images) Moses allowed you to divorce (blurred images) . It was (blurred) like that from the beginning. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, (blurred), and marries another, is (blurred) in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is (blurred) in marriage.”

Here is the actual text from Matthew:

Jesus said to them, “Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”

Posted by judy on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 1:53 PM (EDT):

As this article opens our mind to see the manipulation of some, maybe many who has the powerful position in our Holy Mother Church, we only have to be vigilant to rely on The Spirit of God to see the facts without loosing the peace in our soul.
As some comments on Hillary White article, she may have audience and some intellengence, however I felt that it lacks humility and reservation.

She finished her writing “This pontificate isn’t an anomaly; it was the only possible outcome, and it was as much the work of Joseph Ratzinger as Walter Kasper”
Does she ever poise to reflect that God permits the unreasonable pain in our church our life for the greater good?
There is no horizontal line between Ratzinger and Kasper! These two souls are rooted differently. One smells like the neither world and the other infuse the sweet order of the holy garden. Yes, they are from the same area, the work of Benedict will stay in human history forever.
As much miserable we are with the mess in the church, with the questionable comments from the current holy see, we Catholics must know how to bear the cross, it’s a holy process. If we don’t reflect all things in a Spirtual perspect, we will cave into the work of devil.
Embrace the humanity of Benedict and cherish many good and holy work he left for us.
Does anyone ever thought that Ratzinger alone saw the late drama with felling health of JPII, maybe he did not want to leave his chair like in that situation.
Pray brethren, trust The Father, remember the three young men sang “Benedictus” in the chamber of fire.

Posted by EMMETT on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 1:46 PM (EDT):

Every wedding anniversary,birthday,Christmas,valentines day,the Wife gives her husband a card for that particular occasion with a hand written massage in side,describing her most inner thoughts,feeling and love for her husband.over the years these cards pile up,On their 60th wedding anniversary the wife decides to present her husband with a special diamond wedding anniversary card with a message written inside,of her undying love for him,she places it on top of all the other cards she has sentimentally kept over the years,in fact a diary of her love, and a life shared together with her husband, what a wonderful treasure.The husband on receiving them says thanks I love you honey, I am sure they are wonderful, but I haven’t really got time to read them,I have other things planned to do,wouldn’t the wife feel hurt and rejected by her husband ,sounds similar to this letter written by pope Benedict XVI.

Posted by Anna on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 11:29 AM (EDT):

As a person trained and experienced in literary criticism, I would not say that these words were NOT penned by P.E. Benedict in response to the ‘gift’ alluded to. In favor of authenticity is that, while forming a courteous response, they decline to express a soon or uninformed opinion on the 11 books. And the concluding paragraph - so artfully suppressed in the official release - can be read (as has been observed) as a piece of delicate, and very ‘Benedictine’, irony.

Posted by Reuben on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 11:29 AM (EDT):

This article is ridiculous. Perhaps the Vatican left the paragraph out because they knew some people would jump to insane conclusions as do the 4 commenters above? (3 of whom suggest the letter is forged; 2 of whom make attacks on Pope Benedict’s character.) If you insist comments be charitable, what about those? Nor is there any need for Mr. Pentin to raise suspicions about the phrase “inner continuity”—it’s clear enough as it stands here, and it’s certainly clear in light of the Pope Emeritus’ previous statements on this topic. What purpose can questioning its meaning have? Benedict in his first three paragraphs says he is in favor of the books and supports their general thesis; in his last two paragraphs he says he can’t make statements about their details, however, because he hasn’t read them closely. That’s the whole story. Has Mr. Pentin—have the other commenters—read the volumes? What, then, do they care what the Pope Emeritus thinks about their details? Benedict’s support for the project and its general thesis remains important. And the Vatican was wise to draw attention to it, without distraction.

Posted by Will Walsh on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 11:27 AM (EDT):

I gather that these are the different things people think about this letter:

1) The Pope Emeritus wants to gently reproach those saying that Bergoglio lacks solid foundation in Catholic theology, and confirm the continuity of the present pontificate with his own;

2) Ratzinger is not really familiar with Bergoglio’s theology, but has a) carelessly or b) because he is under duress or not himself vouched for it.

3) Ratzinger is either a) being held hostage by the Vatican or b) finally off his nut and letter is fraudulent and cannot be trusted.

I think 1), but I have always seen more continuity than difference between them. Having acknowledged my bias, I have to ask if there is anything other than that people think the writing style of the (translated surely) letter is inconsistent with that of the Pope Benedict with whom they are familiar that makes them suspect a Dan Brown/Hollywood script level intrigue is at work here?

I think the Pope Emeritus knows that some question whether Pope Francis is Catholic or say he is a heretic. He has taken the time to discourage them from speaking on his behalf, which I think some may have done.

For what it is worth, it reads like Ratzinger to me.

Posted by matty on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 11:09 AM (EDT):

I also have read Hillary White’s recent article. May I say that I think we are being a little too hard on Benedict. His position is very delicate and I think he is being very judicious in his comments. See in the book [In Sinu Jesu-The Journal of a Priest at Prayer] how the Lord has many fine things to say of him (see pages 164-5). Notice that although the book’s entries stop at June 2, 2016, nothing is said of Pope Francis. This made me wonder… Even at the time of Pope Francis’ election there is no comment about him. The nearest entry to March 13, 2013 (the day of PF’s election) is on March 28, 2013. An excerpt from this entry says, “Only the prayer of My priests, made in union with the prayer of My Heart to the Father, will be able to preserve and console My Church in the darkness that lies ahead” (see p. 240ff). I have no doubt that we are now experiencing this darkness.

Posted by Toan on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 10:46 AM (EDT):

It looks like someone attempted applying a “paradigm shift” to interpreting Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s letter: Using our Holy Father’s writings to cover over those of a predecessor.

On a more serious note, yes, the letter doesn’t sound like Benedict—his style is much gentler—but at the same time, Benedict is capable of taking something that someone else wrote, adding his own input, and then signing it. That’s a fine thing to do (albeit pretentious on the part of the person feeding him lines).

I think his words, even about continuity, are genuine. After all, between our Holy Father and his predecessor there are certainly many continuities to be found, and so it’s not inappropriate to speak of inner continuity between the two pontificates, even though areas of apparent discontinuity exist that won’t be clarified. I take the words as a sign of faith that God is ultimately the one in control.

Seems clear that the first three paragraphs were published because they give our Holy Father a PR boost, and the fourth paragraph was omitted because it doesn’t. Although his reasons of health and prior commitments are surely valid and don’t actually reflect the value of the books, it nonetheless looks bad. Someone must have been thinking that the fourth paragraph wouldn’t see the light of day, because it’s surely embarrassing that someone literally covered up Benedict’s statement that he doesn’t plan to read the books. That looks dishonest.

Posted by MikeP on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 10:08 AM (EDT):

Surely the last thing any pope would let happen is confusion about church doctrine.Yet, we are in the mist of just that.Please Pope Francis stand up and make straight the pathway to our Lord. Pope Benedict, are you not seeing this breakdown? Your silence grows more deafening with each passing day!
Lord Jesus, we beg you, help your church to not be scattered! Give us the Grace to understand your will during this most unprecedented and stressful age.

Posted by Todd Voss on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 9:36 AM (EDT):

I read the final paragraph as saying he doesn’t have time to actually read the books. He just looked at them (they were a gift) noted the contents and that is the basis of his comment.

Posted by Chrys in Naples on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 7:38 AM (EDT):

O how I love our Papa Benny!!! Such a dear, sweet, intelligent and HUMBLE voice in service of Our Lord and His Bride!

“a theorist of theology” indeed: one of our greatest theologians in my own opinion, I re-read his encyclicals often and find new layers within for each reading.

I do not understand all the stuff and nonsense I read in these comments, I really don’t. Someone made a gift of his books, and our Papa Emeritus says thank you very much, but I do not choose to drop everything and change my own course of study to read your eleven books and make an academic analysis for you. He says it very kindly as is his way. The two Popes colloborated on the first encyclical published under Pope Francis’ name… I doubt that Pope Emeritus Benedict would learn anything new about his successor’s theological stances in doing the homework that this well-meaning author tried to assign to him, lol?

I couldn’t honestly say whether this is really Benedict’s words, but the last paragraph seems to be rather damning. He makes repeated references throughout to the fact that the volumes are small, and then makes it clear that he had no inclination to read them sufficiently thoroughly to comment. If I was the recipient of this letter I would regard it as polite but dismissive. No wonder the last bit wasn’t released!

Posted by TLM on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 3:39 AM (EDT):

I don’t believe Benedict wrote this for a second!!

Posted by Edward J Baker on Wednesday, Mar, 14, 2018 12:47 AM (EDT):

If Benedict actually wrote this, without noting the many disgraceful foolish prejudices Francis has exhibited towards his critics defending the deposit of faith against a man who is clearly a moral relativist, the very sort of voice that Benedict began his pontificate condemning, then it is disgraceful on the part of Benedict, period.

Posted by Judy on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 11:04 PM (EDT):

Thank you Mr.Pentin for reporting the full Text. This is very important.
Your ability to bring the whole things is a clear contrast with many drive by Vatican reporters.

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 10:35 PM (EDT):

“So you do not see any kind of break with your pontificate?”

“No. I mean, one can of course misinterpret in places, with the intention of saying that everything has been turned on its head now. If one isolates things, takes them out of context, one can construct opposites, but not if one looks at the whole. There may be a different emphasis, of course, but no opposition.

“Now, after the present time in office of Pope Francis – are you content?”

“Yes. There is a new freshness in the Church, a new joyfulness, a new charisma which speaks to people, and that is certainly something beautiful.”

Taken from Benedict XVI, Pope. Last Testament: In His Own Words Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 10:19 PM (EDT):

Sorry fellows, this does sound like Benedict.

Benedict has never said anything negative about Pope Francis, ever. And just because the enemies of Francis like to pretend that Benedict would be on their side, does not prove that he is. This letter accords with the things that Benedict has had to say about Francis previously.

Oh sure he went to Cardinal Meisner’s funeral and praised him. Cardinal Meisner was a great man and a great friend of Benedict. That however does not prove that Benedict does not get along with Francis or does not value his thought or actuations. Some people are bigger than the pigeonholes we place them in.

The paragraph where he refuses to make any dense theological statement about the eleven volume collection of SECONDARY literature about the thought of Pope Francis because he was physically unable to dedicate himself to reading it, also sounds like Benedict, and very much so.

Those who read this a sort of backhanded snide way of saying that I really don’t mean what I just said about the philosophical and theological preparation of Pope Francis and about the continuity mean my papacy and his, are applying confusing their own nasty and twisted way of thinking with the clear, sober, honest and humble intelligence of Benedict.

Posted by EMMETT on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 9:39 PM (EDT):

We know the papacy of pope Francis is in deep crisis and lacking credibility,due to the poor handling of the Chile child sex abuse scandal,The Chinese under ground church seemingly being sold out to a communist government,the split over Amoris Laetitia ch 8 etc ,Here again we see how the Vatican works trying to spin this letter to gain a bit of credibility for Pope Francis which at the minute is in short supply. Of the top of my head didn’t pope Benedict recently give high praise to the books or writings by Cardinal Sarah, and Cardinal Muller,putting the statement of Pope Benedict in this light, it seems to me that pope Benedict is basically saying I haven’t got time to read pope Francis 11 short volumes on theology,because of ether one of two reasons,1 obviously is his deteriorating health,or 2 a very charitable rejection of what Pope Francis has written,

Posted by Nancy D. on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 7:41 PM (EDT):

I fear for the safety of Our Holy Father. May God protect him!

Posted by José on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 7:38 PM (EDT):

1) This books show the inner continuity between the two pontificates.

2) I have not read them.

What can this mean? Sandro Magister talks about the “fine irony” of Ratzinger in this paragraph.

Posted by James on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 7:37 PM (EDT):

From the ever so gracious Bavarian scholar, from a man who can wield the most subtle nuance, from a polite man, does it not say everything?

Posted by John Grimes on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 6:12 PM (EDT):

The phrases in this note DO NOT sound at all like Benedict’s own. They sound like the phrases one of Francis’ apologists might have penned. Another scandal in the making?

Posted by Nancy D. on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 6:01 PM (EDT):

“I applaud this initiative that wants to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice in which Pope Francis is just a practical man without particular theological or philosophical formation, while I have been only a theorist of theology with little understanding of the concrete life of a Christian today.

The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament.”

These two paragraphs are not consistent with Our Holy Father’s letter or his style of writing.

Posted by Evangeline on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 5:39 PM (EDT):

Okay, so in looking at this again, it seems that Benedict is refuting the idea that Francis is just a man with a petite theology and he is a man who only knows theory.
I just read Hillary White’s great article “et tu, Benedict?”, which has made a lurking question more front and center. Did we know Benedict at all? It has been impossible to reconcile the sharp decline in the church, the relentless distancing from actual Catholicism, the refusal to do anything concrete to stop the assault on young boys and young men. Why, why, when so much could have been done. Maybe we were wrong and need to rethink pretty much everything. In that light, things might make more sense.
On the face of it, however, I must say, this letter does not “sound” like Benedict. It has a nasty tone I don’t recall him using, saying “foolish prejudice”. Who is he talking about? And is it like him to allude to “continuity” between his and the Francis pontificate? Why talk about that at all. Who is being soothed or convinced by this letter? It’s actually just another communication from Benedict that doesn’t sound right.
Or does it.

Posted by Chris Griffin on Tuesday, Mar, 13, 2018 5:20 PM (EDT):

The fact that Benedict XVI has note read the books destroys any credibility that he has or his letter has. It is an obvious setup

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Edward Pentin began reporting on the Pope and the Vatican with Vatican Radio before moving on to become the Rome correspondent for the National Catholic Register. He has also reported on the Holy See and the Catholic Church for a number of other publications including Newsweek, Newsmax,Zenit, The Catholic Herald, and The Holy Land Review, a Franciscan publication specializing in the Church and the Middle East. Edward is the author of “The Rigging of a Vatican Synod? An Investigation into Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family”, published by Ignatius Press. Follow him on Twitter @edwardpentin